FRANK JAMES GENTRY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frank Gentry petitioned for habeas corpus relief, claiming he lacked counsel during his 1951 armed robbery trial. The Florida Supreme Court discharged the writ, holding that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to challenge the accuracy of trial court records; instead, Gentry must first seek to correct the trial court records and exhaust remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 before seeking habeas relief.
Habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to question the verity of court records. A petitioner must first exhaust remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 and, if necessary, apply to the trial court to correct its records to reflect the truth. Only after the records are corrected may the petitioner seek relief under Rule #1.
“the verity of court records cannot be questioned on habeas corpus but they should be corrected by application to the trial court to cause its records to speak the truth”
Establishes the foundational rule that habeas corpus is not the proper vehicle for challenging record accuracy; correction must occur in the trial court first.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Gentry was arraigned, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced in 1951 for armed robbery. Trial court records indicated he was represented by counsel. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assistance Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Frank Gentry, alleges that he did not have the assistance of counsel when he was arraigned, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 1951 for the crime of armed robbery. Two successive motions filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule #1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix were denied by the trial court on the ground that the record of the original trial showed that petitioner was represented by counsel. Petitioner did not appeal from the orders denying relief under said Rule #1.
We issued the writ and the respondent has filed a return.
To his petition for writ of habeas corpus now before us the petitioner attaches what purports to be a letter to petitioner from the attorney which the trial court records indicate to have represented petitioner at the trial leading to his present confinement. In this letter the attorney states that he did not at any time represent petitioner in his trial and offers to execute an affidavit to this effect. The attorney suggests in the letter that the Clerk of the Court -may have assumed that he represented petitioner because the petitioner was seated at a table with other codefendants represented by the attorney.
In his return the respondent correctly points out that in these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to relief in this proceeding because: (1) he failed to exhaust his remedies under Criminal Procedure Rule #1 when he did not appeal the denial of relief thereunder, and (2) the verity of court records cannot be questioned on habeas corpus but they should be corrected by application to the trial court to cause its records to speak the truth. Hanley v. State, 1905, 50 Fla. 82, 39 So. *434149; Chapman v. Stubbs, 1933, 109 Fla. 192, 147 So. 227, and State ex rel. Wilson v. Culver, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 674.
It thus appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief by habeas corpus. If in a proper proceeding he is able to demonstrate to the trial court that its records do not speak the truth, and the records are changed to reflect that he was not represented by counsel during the proceedings in the trial court, he can then again petition the trial court for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule # 1.
Accordingly the writ is discharged, but without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to move the trial court to correct its records to speak the truth.
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and. THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gentry v. State, 186 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…Motion to correct trial court records and upon correction, motion to vacate judgment and sentence.” This motion was filed subsequent to his petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Florida Supreme Court and the decision rendered in Gentry v. State, 172 So. 2d 433, wherein relief was denied but without prejudice to petitioner to petition the trial court to correct its records. [*532] Appellant and three codefendants were informed against for armed robbery in November 1951. The trial'court records show that Ge…
-
Haacks v. Louie L. Wainwright, 387 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1968)…72 U.S. 293, 322, 83 S.Ct. 745, 762 [9 L.Ed.2d 770] (1963). * * * [additional cases cited in a footnote].” Florida provides criminal proceedings to determine whether the records of the trial courts speak the truth. Gentry v. State, Fla.Sup.Ct.1965, 172 So. 2d 433. Haacks has requested the Florida state courts to amend his record but it appears that such requests have been denied without hearings. Our case is an apposite analogue of United States v. Taylor, 4 Cir. 1962, 303 F. 2d 165.1 Haacks seeks a plenary…
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. David L. Wilson v. Culver, 110 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1959)
- Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1905)
- Chapman v. Stubbs, 109 Fla. 192 (Fla. 1933)